Eco-Imperialism in North America and the World

A few years ago, I was invited to appear before Congress on the global warming issue. It was at the height of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria and the political games were hitting their stride. While in Washington, I was invited to make a couple of presentations, one at the famous off campus restaurant, The Monocle. Besides the honor, it allowed me to meet people in the US and especially Washington who were maintaining calm amidst the hysteria.

The lunch was arranged by the late Amy Ridenour, then President of the National Center for Public Policy Research. There were many I met for the first time, who became very powerful advocates against the AGW deception. Marc Morano was deep into research for Senator James Inhofe, one of the few politicians who did not get swept up. Since leaving Inhofe’s employ, he established the very successful Climate Depot website. Another person, Paul Driessen, introduced himself and gave me a copy of his then new book Eco-Imperialism.

The hypocrisy that the developed nations used fossil fuels to improve the length and quality of life and are now denying that opportunity to other nations is egregious. What makes it worse is that we know that the development the environmentalists oppose is the best way to reduce population and the pressures it brings. I wrote about what is called the demographic transition here. This hypocrisy is throughout all the environmentalist’s actions as they live the good life while telling others to live in poverty or at best reduced opportunity.

It was central to the ban on CFCs. We have reduced our food losses through refrigeration, now you cannot have CFCs because we decided it is harming the environment. India and China both raised this hypocrisy in opposition to the Montreal Protocol, a forerunner to the Kyoto Protocol and its replacement the Paris Climate Accord. Prime Minister Modi was one of the first world leaders to retake some of the moral high ground usurped by the environmentalists. He pointed out that he had people starving to death that would be saved by development. The truth is that coal saved billions from starvation and malnutrition while improving the quality of their lives in almost every way. In every country people are living longer and in better health than ever before. As it is cryptically said, when Mozart was my age he had been dead for 44 years.

All of this, and the purpose for this article, was triggered by an article that appeared in Canada about a complaint from some aboriginal people (At their request we call them First Nations people). They said they were subjected to environmental and ecological policies without consultation about what they thought and what was appropriate for their cultural views. Many wanted to develop resources on their land but most First Nations land is effectively under the control of the Federal government of Canada. They were victims of eco-imperialism, just like the nations Driessen identified. Of course, this is not surprising because they were ‘losers’ to imperialism. In fact, they were worse off because they remained under colonial imperialism after other countries were set free.

A complaint was made by First Nations People in Manitoba, Canada, with Manitoba Hydro, an arms-length from government organization controls all power production and distribution in the Province. Almost all the power is produced from hydroelectric dams particularly across the central part of the Province. This exploits the head of energy created by drainage north into Hudson Bay. The claim was that their traditional culture was destroyed by the development of Hydroelectric power across the Province. Much of their anger was triggered by the book As Long as The Rivers Runthat identified what it called “Hydro Communities.” The book noted that in these communities there was wife abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, glue snuffing, high crime rates, and failure of the school system. Hydro agreed to an inquiry and First Nations asked me to Chair the Inquiry.

I formed a committee including a historian, economist, and lawyer. I agreed to do the work if the terms were changed from investigating the impact on their traditional lifestyle to how their historical lifestyle changed over time. Tradition can be what you did yesterday, what we need to know is how First Nations people adapted and coped with all changes.

The first thing I did was reconstruct climate and environmental change from 900 A.D. to the present. That date was chosen because it marks the onset of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the in-migration of most First Nations people (Cree, Ojibway, and Chipewyan) into the region. We then identified and measured the impact of major cultural changes such as the appearance of Europeans, the Fur Trade, political, and legal changes. They coped with and accommodated every change with varying degrees of success, except one.

In 1870 Canada was created and the British North America (BNA) Act superseded all previous situations including the vast holdings and control of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). Part of the BNA was The Indian Act and it alone was the one thing that turned First Nations into colonial territories within Canada. They put all First Nations people onto Reservations. The government of the day agreed to provide all basic services including education and healthcare. If you want to see the effects of 148 years of government welfare visit a First Nations reserve.

In our studies, we were not able to find any standard anthropological terms that fit the pattern of behavior of these people. Central to their survival was the ability to move. It was not a regular migration in any way. They stayed in an area as long as the food supply lasted, then they would move to another location based on information and knowledge. It was not predetermined, except by the sequence created by natural cycles. While they ostensibly retained their traditional lifestyle, in fact, by forcing them to surrender the right to move was a psychological blow they couldn’t survive.

The claim about “Hydro Communities” was what we called a point-of-impact study. They identified them then inferred that the problems were a result of Hydro development. We took a historical approach and discovered that all the problems existed before Hydro appeared. The idea that First Nations people were not open to development and innovation is false, as Olive Dickason explained in her book “Canada’s First Nation.” For the first 100 years of the Fur Trade, they were in control.

A few years ago, I spoke at a Fur Traders conference in Sun Peaks, British Columbia. The keynote speaker was a First Nations person from Manitoba who was appointed Minister of Northern Affairs. He spoke about his recent trip to Europe where he attacked European hypocrisy. He told them they created the fur trade and forestry industries as major sources of income and development for First Nations, now they were shutting it all down because they were bullied by environmentalists who offered no evidence to support their demands. The interesting part of this story is that all this should have been done through and by the federal government, but they were not protecting their people. This means that Canadian First Nations people were subject to eco-imperialism.

Thinking about all this in the context of the recent complaints of eco-imperialism and anti-development by the First Nations people it occurred to me that we have progressed in a negative way. Now, the entire middle class of the world are victims of eco-imperialism because it is the use of environmentalism and climate change to impose power and control of most people’s lives by a power elite minority.

Imperialism and any other form of power and control are built on the belief that we know what is good for you, so we will use that as an excuse to impose our will and way. As H. L. Mencken said decades ago,

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts.

There is always a false threat used to justify the imposition of power and control. Global warming was a threat that transcends national boundaries making it impossible for any one nation to manage. After five days with Maurice Strong at the UN where he was creating the threat and offering the solution, Elaine Dewar summarized his goal as follows,

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

He was so successful that the middle class has been under the yolk of eco-imperialism ever since. In the original European based imperialism, particularly by the British Empire, it was supported by the growth and use of the Press. The only information available to the British Citizen was provided by the newspaper, particularly The Times. Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797) also identified the power of the Press when he said,

There are three estates in Parliament but in the Reporter’s Gallery yonder there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all (sic).

At about the same time, English poet William Cowper (1731 – 1800) summarized the situation, “The Progress of Error”. The focus was already sensationalism and exploitation of fear.

Totaling US$35 million, Tides made more than 400 payments (2009 to 2015) to nearly 100 anti-pipeline groups. Without all that Tides money, pipeline projects would not be facing well-organized opposition.

A left-wing lobby group in San Francisco wired $55,000 to the bank account of an Indian chief in Northern Alberta, paying him to oppose the oilsands.

The Tides Foundation is the creation of billionaire George Soros who makes money destroying national economies. He is a member of the Club of Rome formed at the Italian estate of David Rockefeller in 1968 and progenitor through another member Maurice Strong of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Consider the irony of these people making their money from capitalism and then using it to promote the deception of global warming to enslave the middle class.

The United Nations Foundation was created by prominent CoR member Ted Turner. He donated one billion dollars to support the environmental activities of the UN. A significant proportion of this money was designated for “programmes specifically addressing climate change” and funding the IPCC.

The UN Foundation created the Global Leadership for Climate Action described as follows;

Global Leadership for Climate Action is a joint initiative of the United Nations Foundation and the Club of Madrid which “aims to design a framework for a new enforceable international agreement on climate change.” The GLCA has editorial input into reports and assessments produced by the IPCC and provides “technical expertise on the implications and communication of climate change science.” By my count more than two-thirds of the GLCA members are also members of the CoR including: George Soros, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mary Robinson, Sir Crispin Tickle, Kim Campbell, Wangari Maathai, Petra Roman and Richard Lagos. Now I have to wonder what qualifies George Soros and Ted Turner to provide technical advice on climate change science!

Most of these names are known to the people I met at the Monocle. More people must become aware of them and what they did as they subjected the majority in the middle of every nation to eco-imperialism.

154 thoughts on “Eco-Imperialism in North America and the World”

“Now I have to wonder what qualifies George Soros and Ted Turner to provide technical advice on climate change science!”

Selfishness, narcissistic, egotism, holier than thou beliefs, desire to force us peons to live their way (colonialism), lack of common sense, lack of knowledge regarding right or wrong, etc.
It sure isn’t intelligence, honor or desire to what is right for life on Earth.

Soros and his ilk have, if you haven’t noticed, done a great job of compromising our youth, the millennials especially, and apparently the USA’s Democratic Party. They now “own” the socialist and environmental movements. Their game is not about climate, the environment or any such thing, it is the ultimate game, power. They have all the money they possibly need and do NOT make the mistake that they feel guilty about it. They want power or to at least know that they have had the power to influence the entire world, even if that influence might ultimately mean the deaths of tens of millions. They certainly do not care about destroying the crony capitalist system that made them wealthy.

You left out – guilt. Guilt for having accumulated an ungodly amount of wealth, concentrated in their few hands. Guilt that used to be assuaged by the Catholic Church (the original ‘Club of Rome’). But the Roman Catholic Club had lost its influence over such modern arrogant, independent, enormous wealth. These men ARE their own gods. These men detest the little people’s superstitious (sic) belief in a ‘sky daddy’ (sic) God. These men believe in ‘science’. ‘Science’ that they have transformed into a new religion. A ‘science’ that they believe answers THE one spiritual question of mankind – who are we, and what is the meaning of life? Their answer: mankind is nothing. Just another organism on the planet, nay a parasite on the planet. And these Queen-parasites will change the behaviour of the hive. They will ensure their fellow parasites find a new symbiotic way of living with their host planet. And the Queen will be obeyed, or she will have drones eat the heads of the deniers. Devolution is ugly business. Guilt demands reparations that, ironically, the innocents will PAY!

I would suggest reserving the term selfishness to a positive moral evaluation, i.e. in a rational context. Much in line with integrity and intelligence etcetera.
So I have to wonder whether it is some misguided self-righteousness or plain nihilism.

India’s Prime Minister Modi is going to China this week, intending to bring India into cooperation with China and Russia in the global development alternative – BRI or New Silk Road. If President Trump brings the U.S. into full cooperation in the New Silk Road, the end of that British imperial horror show is nigh. After all imperialism depends on divide-and-conquer. Nothing can be expected of the EU’s imperial French (as they are wont) spokesman Monsieur Macron lecturing Congress on the Paris Accord and indefinite war, with Congress roaring approval. The upcoming SCO Summit has London already howling in horror.
President Trump is facing that imperialism off and just witness the unrelenting coup with dodgy dossiers, fake poisoning, Ukraine, Mueller, “star” actresses …

Attempting a thermonuclear confrontation I would term an imperial horror show. The Lead does mention the history, and Mme Zakharove documents that horror show unmercifully by name, from the highest levels of the Kremlin.
“The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire.” Documentary · How Britain transformed from an imperial power to a financial power. is a good place to start on imperialism today. Just mention Glass-Steagall, FDR’s banking law that rebuilt the devastated USA, and hear the howling. Try it somewhere in the City or WallStreet.

Attempting a thermonuclear confrontation I would term an imperial horror show.

Blaming the UK for the Cold War is a bit much. We didn’t even have the nukes when it started.
And the Imperial power than conquered half of Europe when it started is still using WMD. Look at Salisbury and Syria

Remember the “Iron Curtain” speech? Or your very own Lord Bertrand Russell, “peacenik”, calling for the immediate nuking of the Soviet (after Czara Bomba he harrumphed)? Just imagine what JFK though when that mephistopheles self-nominated to parlay during Cuba?

Climate and communism are directly linked in rhetoric and anti colonialism but the skeptic alliances that exist can’t face or agree on the basic intent of international climate policy which was always political from inception.
It’s moderate green sympathy skeptics that need to change.

David A Smith
Closed shop I’m afraid. I would have to be proposed as a member, by a member.
It seems unless I associate with wealthy, fascist, climate alarmist’s, I don’t suppose I’ll ever be proposed.
Ah well, their loss.

There are some groups that have shown they cannot be trusted. The Russian Federation’s government is one.
As far as the accusation, they have some measure of truth, but with quite a bit of falsehood. India was not “de-industrialized” as they were not industrialized in the first place. Britain did hold them back via colonization, and there was oppression. However, it was not deliberate famine, but a mix of conditions and mismanagement.

The imperial apology : This is what Churchill said in a conversation with Secretary of State for India and Burma Leopold Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
Addressing Speaker’s Research Initiative on July 24, 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed that the discourse by Dr Shashi Tharoor met the aspirations of his country’s citizens.
Zakharova’s testimony does really make the Colonel Blimps (British liberal imperialists) wilt. The history book to read is Inglorious Empire released in 2017 by Dr Tharoor (not the Kremlin mind you).

And Mrs. May’s government is the one not to be trusted. Blair’s very own Gov’t dodgy dossier was not to be trusted either. Mr. Steel’s MI6 dodgy dossier neither to be trusted. And Mr. Mueller’s caper has turned up a nothing burger, although with “stormy” sizzle, no beef. But Mrs May surely takes the biscuit with #fakegas.

If you want to see the effects of 148 years of government welfare visit a First Nations reserve.
=============
The destructive power of government welfare has ravaged communities of all races across Canada and the US.
Yet people who speak out against the damage caused are labelled as discriminating against poor people.

Here is what (eco)-imperialism means (from the Russian link with english transcript above) :
Speaking at Oxford on July 22, 2015, Dr. Tharoor said: “India’s share of the world economy when Britain arrived on its shores was 23 per cent. By the time the British left it was down to below four per cent.
According to Dr Tharoor, in fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India. Britain repeatedly provoked famine in India, which killed between 15 million and 29 million people. The best known famine was that in Bengal in 1943, when four million Indians died.
Deindustrialization has ravaged the USA – why Trump was elected. Unfortunately not clear why Trudeau got elected. After the WallStreet/London crash FDR got elected 4 times to re-industrialize and provide social security while it geared up. Labour is running on 250Billion Pound re-industrializing program very like FDR. But Glass-Steagall is needed to break the City. Meanwhile China is running the greatest infratructure program in history, also in Africa. Trump very much admires this breakout from imperialism.

Why don’t you try some real history?
The claim that India constituted 23% of the world’s industrial production prior to colonization is not credible.
The period in question saw rapid rise in economic activity across the world. Even in the colonies.

ozonebust, he is obviously correct and Bonbon is clearly an idiot.
The idea that India lost infrastructure and had fewer railways after the Empire than before is obviously silly.
But if you want to see how badly he has got the world upside-down try some actual linked facts as well as common sense.

M Courtney
Thank you for the link, and for the clarification.
It should have been MarkW that supplied the link. That is the point I was making. I was not agreeing with bonbon.
Common sense should have identified that
Regards

Bonbon: Because it is written and said (Tharoor)vdoesn’t make it so. What a pickle we would be in if we believed all we read and heard. Often such over the top angry rhetoric is because there is no convincing case to be made. You are selectively reading only that which supports your own beliefs. That is not the way to wisdom my friend.
The third world for all its complaints has been a big net beneficiary of the West’s Industrial Revolution the Age of Enlightenment and European colonization. The Romans were not sweet, cuddly or even just and they rolled over Europe in bloody conquest, but out of all this came knowledge, technology, advancement…
“23% of the world economy” – pure invention, but whatever it was the major trading companies from Britain were part of it. Politically incorrect I know, but there you are.

MarkW said: “Some claims are so ludicrous they are self refuting.”
Yeah, right, the guy who never posts links makes the excuse that the claim is self refuting. You have time to post dozens if not 100s of comments per week, why not take a few minutes and find links to support your claims once in awhile?
Perhaps it’s because you are wrong as it relates to the topic of how the Indian economy fared under British rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

Poor, poor, chris. Why do you have to lie? Is it because you know that the truth won’t advance your cause.
I’ve posted links, lots of times. Most of the time the points I’m making are so obvious that links are redundant.
It really must hurt your pride when someone you look down on keeps making a fool out of you.

M Courtney said (referring to bonbon): But if you want to see how badly he has got the world upside-down try some actual linked facts as well as common sense.
Thanks for providing a link that shows that bonbon was right, and you were wrong. India was colonized by Britain in 1858 and gained freedom in 1947. On your link the closest GDP dates are 1870 and 1950, respectively. India’s GDP increased from 134B to 222B, an annual increase of .6% over the 80 year period. During the same period, the UK’s economy grew from 100B to 347B, an annual increase of 1.6%. That’s 2 1/2 times the growth rate of India’s economy. There is no reason the same kind of industrialization that benefited the UK so much economically could not have been done in India. But Britain didn’t want that, they wanted export markets, so they kept India from advancing economically.

First off, 90+% of the posts here don’t have links. But trolls like Chis don’t complain about them.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve bruised his precious ego so many times.
Regardless, once again Chris is forced to lie about what the subject is in order to make himself seem relevant. At least to himself.
I have never said anything about the industrial capacity of India during the colonial period.

Government welfare, visibly and seen (and aclaimed), transfers and redistributes an amount of prosperity from where prosperity is produced to some place that, in theory, poverty exists. That is the part that is seen.
The part that is not seen is that it is a natural impossibility for a government to transfer and redistribute an amount of prosperity without at the same time transferring and redistributing an even greater amount of poverty as a functional feedback (or backfire) to the prosperity transfer. Governments’ programs will never be a solution for poverty because governments’ costs are by far the largest cause of poverty. The greater the amount that is done by governments, the greater the amount that will apparently need to be done.
Popular Democracy is proving to be a soft variety of Communism.

Did’nt Ted Turner found CNN, #fakenews? George Soros manage(d) the Queen’s Quantum Fund at the LTCM debacle. Club of Rome, Club of the Isles, Bilderberg .. the list is long, but it is a Club of the few, an imperial oligarchy. The Russian Foreign Ministry Report details and names the mass murder on a level beyond belief. It seems the Skripal caper was just too much.
The caption image of this article is thus very wrong.

He’s too silly to be a real Russian troll.
More likely he’s some post-grad in media studies doing an exciting research paper into the far-right online community by pretending to be a Russian troll.
The fact that the methodology is wrong in everyway is actually evidence in favour of it being an Academic.

The Transaqua Project to refill Chad with some water from the Congo has China now onboard. The EU eco-resistance to this is on profile, shades of Canada above. China and Italy’s Bonifica sees things totally differently than Brussels or Merkel. This will be the largest infrastructure project ever in Africa, a real lbreak with colonialism.

Rather ill informed opinion there. Transaqua is an Italian Project, after looking for EU support for years with no avail, China stepped in. The notoriously bankrupt transatlantic simply can’t do it. There is now an unstoppable alternative – the greatest infrastructure project in all history – BRI. It is time to join up! It the transatlantic actually wants to have a say get on-board, and not just with worn old cliche’s.

This isn’t new news, but it does at least provide enough details to confirm suspicions.
What a bunch of cranks they are. They travel en solo, heavily guarded, pretending to themselves that someone wants to assassinate them when they aren’t worth the slightest effort to do so. and they want to rule the world. Paranoia and delusions go hand in hand, don’t they?
Ye, we should push back as hard as they push us. Some day, these people will all die and the twerps they leave behind will spend their money heedlessly.
Let’s try to remember that Pol Pot was ousted and finally died; Hitler is dead; Stalin died of a brain hemorrhage; Mao is dead and the Gang of Four were arrested, imprisoned and are mostly dead now. Robespierre was sent to the guillotine. Bloody Mary Tudor died.
I’m going to go give my fridge and 7.0 cubic foot freezer a pat on the side of the door.

The Americans conquored the Indians by shooting them. The Canadians conquored the plains Indians by shooting the buffalo. Deprived of their livelihood, the Indians had little choice but to agree to the treaties and go live on reservations where they couldn’t even eke out a bare subsistence.
Government policy was to assimilate the Indians so they could function in mainstream society. That didn’t work out real well.
re. welfare: Until John Diefenbaker made the Indians full Canadian citizens that they could even collect welfare. Before that, they were even worse off. In the time of John A. Macdonald there was great resistance to doing anything to keep the Indians from starving.
re. Treaty money: Five bucks a year.
It continues to be a mess. There are no simple solutions. Look to northern Canada where there is still a realistic chance to live on the land. Most people don’t want to do it. They would far rather live in town with its creature comforts.

In our studies, we were not able to find any standard anthropological terms that fit the pattern of behavior of these people. Central to their survival was the ability to move. It was not a regular migration in any way. They stayed in an area as long as the food supply lasted, then they would move to another location based on information and knowledge. It was not predetermined, except by the sequence created by natural cycles. While they ostensibly retained their traditional lifestyle, in fact, by forcing them to surrender the right to move was a psychological blow they couldn’t survive.

All that is true. Restoring the right to move wouldn’t fix things. In spite of all the good will in the world, there are no easy fixes. If he really puts his mind to helping them, our arrogant young Prime Minister can make things much worse.

The part that is unseen is that government poverty relief programs are the cause of more poverty than could ever be relieved by government programs. The more that governments do, the greater the amount is that will apparently need to be done.

A new type of planned, acceptable poverty. Sure America’s “poor” have central air and heat, hot and cold running potable water, flush toilets, microwave ovens and flat screen tv’s. But poverty’s biggest measurement has been in its hopelessness and no amount of superficial comforts will soothe the stultifying despair of poverty of the spirit.

Decent housing and potable water are a problem on lots of Canadian reserves.
I lived quite close to a reserve in the 1960s and knew lots of people there. An elderly guy died a peaceful death in old age. The family called the RCMP anyway because they had no experience with that kind of thing. The suicide rate was astronomical. It hasn’t improved since then. link If anything it’s worse. Now we have twelve year old kids killing themselves. They are deeply broken people.

I’ve always understood “plains Indians” to refer the US plains. Do Canadians also refer to the Indians living on their plains as “plains Indians”?
(I’ve never heard of any country other than the US being blamed for shooting the buffalo to harm the Indians.)

The Indians of the Canadian Prairies are indeed referred to as Plains Indians.
The Canadian Plains Indians were starved into submission. link The other reason they were easy to subdue was that they could see what was happening south of the border. Thus, when the Metis asked for their help in the North-West Rebellion, most of the tribes sat on the sidelines.Sitting Bull fled to Canada after defeating Custer. The Canadians didn’t kick him out. They just let his people starve until they left of their own volition.

This is stunning. I would like to read the report you mentioned regarding Hydro Communities historical study. From your CV, is it the “Report to Pearse Commission?” I don’t readily find it available with a google search.
Related to this imperialism: control of fertility.
In England, starting some time after the Plague, there was a real shift from the Church being the center of welfare to the government having to play a role, jointly with the Church. We are familiar with the “parish” as a political jurisdiction in England. A “parish” is a religious region, like a “diocese.” As England economy developed after plague, there were migrants and vagrants. The “Poor Laws” developed to declare what could be done to these peoples who were bothering the regular folk. We continue to debate the two approaches: rehabilitation / charity, or punishment.
This led to our well-recognized philosophical / political works on the nature of Man: was he inherently good, or scurrilous? Hobbes / Locke / Rousseau. See? The nature of Man tells us what to do with the Ne’er-Do-Wells who won’t work a solid day’s work, and keep having kids they cannot support.
Darwin’s evolution theory was very well received because it fulfilled this political question. Almost immediately, his cousin Galton began using evolution theory, and (mis)measure of humans to label some humans as genetically biased to be criminal. Nature. This directly led to the birth (ha-ha real funny) of eugenics: positive (the right people reproducing) eugenics and negative (preventing the wrong people from reproducing) eugenics.
–This is quite expansive, but if you review these well-known historical trends, you can see it piece together. Study “Poor Laws” and the birth of Eugenics, beginning with Galton.
There is a direct intellectual and historical line form Galton to American Eugenics Society. The American Eugenics Society grew directly from the Galton Society. [Google “Embryo Project” “American Eugenics Society”) In 1912, Leonard Darwin, son of naturalist Charles Darwin, held the First International Congress of Eugenics in London.”
American Eugenics Society, and related efforts, gave rise to Marie Stopes (UK) and Margaret Sanger (U.S.). Am Eug Soc became Planned Parenthood.
So, the issue of controlling vagrants/ ne’er-do-wells, who provoke us to support them with charity or prison, morphed into the intellectual history of the nature of man and punishment versus rehabilitation, and led to the rise of Population Control. Across the planet. Especially for peoples with darker skin – Asians and Africans.
The hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world. Sanger took her BC movement to China, and to Japan in the 1920s, and their BC / Pop Control movements begin right then, in the 1920s: they were sold on the idea that BC / Pop Control is the path to economic power that the Anglo countries enjoyed. At the same time, “we” Anglos were getting our future threat to neuter themselves. Clever.
This is the birth of huge pop control campaigns in Asian countries – well- documented
Side-note: Hilter knew all of this well, and was a big fan, and adopted eugenics. After WWII, “we” dropped the eugenics angle, and focused on “choice,” and “rights,” and having a modest amount of children in order to be economically prosperous. But there remained the solid emphasis on Pop Control.
To wit: in 1959, PP and the “Population Council” hosted a conference to boost the study of fertility control, “Physiological Mechanisms Concerned with Conception.” Proceedings published in 1963. Preface declares purpose: “everywhere we now find responsible people agreeing that sharp decreases in mortality rates, with corresponding rates in population growth…are now threatening to nullify many carefully planned efforts to speed up social and economic progress in the underdeveloped areas of the world…”
In 1975, Kissinger writes “National Security Study Memo 200” for Prez Ford, a memo that specifically notes population control of those darkies as necessary for long-term national security. NSSM 200 has its own Wikipedia page.
With our First Nation peoples, from, say, 1930s onward, have had a huge forced-sterilization effort through Indian Health Service, and other policy-based avenues. All supposedly for pure goodness from our paternalistic hearts.
From this, hopefully we can all see that the population control movement has been, and continues to be, parallel to this noted Eco-Imperialism. Happy Reading.

I do not have copy of the Report. It was paid for by Manitoba Hydro and so is their property. As I understand from an inside source, they determined it was too controversial so put it on a shelf and waited for the issue to fade into history. This is what has happened with virtually every Report or Commission of Inquiry Report I have every worked on.
These inquiries are the perfect vehicle for politicians and bureaucrats because the public think that the politics has been removed. In fact, they immediately allow the politicians and bureaucrats to avoid questions. They then go back to their offices and draft definitions and terms of reference that predetermine the outcome. We had to fight so hard just to change from traditional to historic lifestyle and believe they only allowed it because they didn’t understand the difference.
Think about what happened with Maurice Strong and the bureaucrats at the WMO. They, through the UNFCCC defined “climate” with an impossibly limited definition and then controlled the research and Reports to achieve the results they wanted. It is how they appear to be listening to the people but in fact achieve even greater control.

Sir Henry Kissinger (Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, a rank normally given to top British diplomats) , NSSM 200 author, boasted at a Chatham House RIIA dinner that he always served the Crown. Well, he now seems to support China’s BRI, and seems to have mellowed with age. Still, NSSM 200 was a genocide program.

There is a lot of background on Strong and the UN here and the influence of Socialist International around the world: “The United (Socialist) Nations – Progress on Global Governance via Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Bio-Diversity” – written in 2011. The agenda rolls on.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/un-progress-governance-via-climate-change
“In 1987, the Brundtland Report, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway and former vice-president of the Socialist International, led to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which led to Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals. The principal draftsman was Mr. Nitin Desai, UNCED’s deputy secretary-general and currently a “Distinguished Fellow” at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organisation.
William D. Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator, was a member of the Brundtland Commission with Maurice Strong.
In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, UNCED, called for a new charter to “guide the transition to sustainable development”. In 1992, the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, and the Rio Declaration seemed to be the most that was achievable at that time.
However in 1994, Maurice Strong, (Earth Council) and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, (Green Cross International) relaunched the Earth Charter as a “civil society” initiative.
As the architect of the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Development Program, (UNEP-UNDP), Strong had for many years co-ordinated and strengthened the integration of Non-Governmental Organisations, (NGO’s) into the UN environmental bodies. In Geneva in 1973, he launched the “World Assembly of NGO’s concerned with the Global Environment”.
A good article on Strong is here:http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/02/08/at-united-nations-curious-career-maurice-strong.html

Ha, ha, ha, ha, Barbara. The international mental masturbatory geniuses are trying to establish an individual right to the environment that a group of NGO warrior/government agent/UN functionary define as perfect. Ha, ha, ha, …..

The same trend in the climate debate remains intact. If the focus remains on the underlying motives of green beliefs, central planning and Marxist ideology, skeptics have a fair chance of slowing the agenda down. Unfortunately each new youth generation is more brainwashed then the prior, at least in the US/EU spheres. That with legacy Marxism in the developing world forms the real climate “consensus”.
Until skeptics unify around Dr. Ball’s general world view or similar, which many find socially and politically repugnant the gridlock or worse will continue. Science logic isn’t going to negate political aspirations and an honest assessment of motives.
Skeptics can cross talk but are completely dysfunctional at reaching the Dr. Ball consensus. The UN Climate Framework remains intact and there is no effective lobby to abolishing it. Skeptics debate the narrative on alarmist talking points and have lost ground for 45+ Years.

Cwon
A pertinent comment. There are individuals and groups of concerned senior scientists pushing back against the tide but airtime is restricted. There are a lot of people doing a very good job of it.
Most folks here are not skeptic’s in the broad sense, they are sceptical about CO2 causing warming to the extent claimed. I like to believe that I am skeptical about everything, but I am even skeptical about that.
If there is one thing I have learned over 65 year’s, you must keep an open mind to absolutely everything.
Another very informative post Dr Ball, it also gives a better understanding of your contribution to society.
Regards

cwon 14 is quite right. I think we need to emphasize the difference between political (consensus) thinking and scientific (evidence-based) thinking. Do not let people make consensus-based comments on science without challenging them. Also emphasize the growing fascist nature of the left in America. Finally, we need to concentrate on the weaknesses of the pro-AGW arguments, such as; their heavy reliance on bias-ridden computers as opposed to empirical evidence; their reluctance to debate and their penchant for ad hominem attacks.

In all of this, it is interesting to note that, in the recent 100 years of intellectual, political, and scientific thought, there has been a mingling of strange bed-fellows: the pointy-headed intellectual scientists, and the Marxists.
After Malthus, I have noted above the foray of geneticists and related scientists into the realm of population control via policy. The scientist-as-political-ruler trend really picks up with Harrison Brown’s popular press Malthusian works, beginning in the 1940s. Paul Ehrlich, notorious population control advocate, directly acknowledges the influence of Brown as he likewise begins spitting out popular-press books on “The Population Bomb,” in the 1960s, which is really the start of the fear of population explosion –> environmental crash in the public’s mind.
Somewhere along the line, Marxists broadened their list of complaints from simply being exploitation of laborers to exploitation of planet earth, and soon after established the first Earth Day, and so on.
Ever since, Marxists and Scientists have had something of a mutual-interest relationship, while mis-understanding or failing to recognize ramifications, such as under Marxism science necessarily being curtailed to fit politics, of this symbiotic relation.

All this set me to thinking about sycophant scientists reaching, some temporarily, pinnacles of power while losing touch with their responsibility. Others abdicated involvement. Some of this was just juvenile and trivial, more easily corrected, at least when the individual was more naive than sly and disingenuous. More of these may have been in biological areas, which are most easily connected to ecological, agricultural and medical disciplines tied up with these problems. Science makes no value judgements, but must be controlled by these. Too many scientific and even engineering societies have to some degree lost this responsibility.
National Socialist Germany officially and openly discriminated against certain groups, whereas those facing us are less apparent for many reasons. Nevertheless, blaming both animate and inanimate features incautiously is unfortunately too human and real population/resource problems easily misunderstood and exploited.
While the history of socialism is failure we seem to be currently viewing a serious example of long in the making mechanisms. There are a number of symptoms, maybe one of the worst too much top-down management which is also causal. Others include teaching birth control along with biodiversity.

“Honorary Degree recipients are selected by the university’s Senate; Faculties, including Engineering, are not invited to participate in the selection of recipients, or indeed consulted in the selection process in any way.”
This recently appeared in the WUWT Suzuki appointment commentary.https://www.ualberta.ca/engineering/news/2018/april/message-from-fraser-forbes
Especially since I included engineering societies in my criticism, this should be lauded, more societies encouraged to do similar objections. Secrecy, exclusion and censorship are other symptoms. I saw it too often in scientific areas. Engineers seem more responsible.

Here’s more ranting rhyme on the press of our time.Coming Out on Climate
Authority figures, foretelling
Hot doom (and our “myths” dispelling),
Cast great dispersions
On skeptical versions
(Which keep carbon credits from selling)!
Now, shriller and louder they’re yelling,
To drown out the doubters’ rebelling!
New taxes are “just”
When you’ve gained public trust,
So “the questioners” (quickly) they’re quelling.
I’ve arrived at this realization;
Our industrial civilization
Can only be sin
If the ‘green’ Marxists win-
On their platform of demonization!

“A few years ago, I was invited to appear before Congress on the global warming issue. It was at the height of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria”
Globally, we are still at the height of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria, except in the US where the current political leadership is allowing for more dissenting voices to be heard.

“Echo Imperialism- the new age white woman’s burden.”
Oh, man, observa. That is so deep on so many levels
Liberal white women are leading the decent into madness. Vaghat wearing clowns, putting vaghats on their daughters, display their ignorance of reality and contempt of rationality; “we feel, therefore we are correct.” Hate Trump, vote Dem.

As soon as I saw the mention ‘AGW hysteria’ I knew this would be an unobjective article as it uses emotive words to influence the reader.
AGW is a well-proven phenomenon that is already having extremely negative consequences for humanity’s future existence on this planet. This is a very prescient forecast of what will happen unless their is a dramatic move towards zero CO2 emissions: https://wp.me/p8BEgP-J1

ivankinsman:. hysteria is a layman’s term for a paranoid psychopathology that presents in the form of exopthalmic hyperventilating strident monomanic morbid fear of something.
dr ball was just saving some typing.
but thanks for presenting yourself as a paratype of that taxon.
everybody is good for something!

I feel perfectly calm gnomish. It seems you are the one subscribing to strident monomanic morbid ranting – I feel a bit shocked by alm this. Calm down … have a bud or a bourbon on the rocks and I am sure you will get back to normal.

Uh, Ivan, you need to put a historical perspective on late 20th Century warming. Its rate of warming is no different than the early 20th Century warming, from about 1915 to 1945. Any future warming is highly speculative.
Do not huddle in the dark fearing the boogie man. Whatever happens to the climate will not manifest itself in your lifetime. Get a grip.

Anything connected to the future is speculative – business investments are highly speculative. Not talking about my lifetime if you read my posts carefully – my children and their children’s lifetimes…

Ivan, I’ve learned that I have to let my children make their own mistakes.
It is arrogance to think than one’s estimate of the future is correct. To put all of one’s money on a single bet about the future is folly in my estimation.

I live in Las Vegas and am not stupid enough to bet on the future. What you do with your own money is your business; just don’t try to appropriate mine for your foolish ventures.
Gambling on IPCC climate models has proven to be a bad bet.

Still waiting for that probability % Dave. Don’t duck the issue. How probable is it that you are right i.e. there are no negative impacts from AGW on humanities future well-being?

100% probability that attempting to limit global temperature rises by artificially controlling CO2 releases will fail.
100% probability that attempting to limit worldwide CO2 releases will cause six billions of people massive harm and injury, and cause needless deaths to hundreds of millions each year.
99.9% chance that reducing a future temperature rise will cause harm to 1 million of innocents. (Or, phrased differently, there is a 0.1% chance that a future temperature rise will cause actual, measureable harm to 0.001% of the people on earth.

Gee. I am glad you are not interested in numbers and probabilities. Perhaps emotions are more correct?Yes, the current politically-socially-inspired CAGW hypocrisies and hyperbolic emotional appeals are 100% founded in one or more socialist-enviro plan for control and profit from the world’s energy solutions and energy monies.

I don’t waste my time trying to prove a negative, Ivan. Nice try on trying to shift the burden of proof, though. Since even the IPCC has acknowledged the unreliability of CMIP5 models, you need better proof to justify significantly altering our society, economy and energy systems.
Since I’ve had a career in planning, financing, designing, constructing and operating and maintaining electric power generation, transmission and distribution systems, there is nothing you can tell me about renewables integration. I was the CEO/General Manager of an electric utility and, among many other high-level electric generation endeavors, directed work on developing a geothermal generation project. I led my lobbyist in lobbying the Nevada Legislature over a few years on renewables portfolio standards. Do you want to compare member sizes?

Answer the question Dave. I don’t care if you are the President of the United States. Just give me a number. I am 100% certain AGW is a phenomenon. What is your % probability that it is having no impact on this biosphere?

Answer the question Dave. I don’t care if you are the President of the United States. Just give me a number. I am 100% certain AGW is a phenomenon.

Oh, so now you do want an “impact” assessment of potential future temperature changes! (Funny, you did not say that before.)
There is a 100% chance that a global change in temperatures will impact people and things living on the globe.
There is a 99% chance that a positive temperature change will improve life for all people and all things living on this globe.
There is a 1% chance than increasing temperatures “might” harm a few people somewhere on the globe in some manner.
There is a 100% percent chance that claiming catastrophic harm “might” occur if nature global warming continues will improve the budgets and political futures of the CAGW castrologists now living off of their previously hyped cagw extremism and political forecasts and political power. There is a ZERO percent of their continued funding if they admit the truth about their geo-political pandering and previous extrapolations and hyperbolic extremism.

Ivan, you don’t know dick; your questioning proves that.
Man continues to have an impact on his environment. At the local level this is eminently manifest and is obviously at 100%.
You say: “I am 100% certain AGW is a phenomenon.” OK, then how certain are you that reasonable projections of anthro CO2 emissions (not the AR5 RCP8.5 nonsense) will lead to runaway global warming and resulting in near-term inundation of coastal areas? Give me percentage estimates of probability bounds of massive SLR rise over the 21st Century.
You can’t because SLR estimates by CMIP5 climate models are very modest. The only way any of the activist “scientists” get massive SLR rise estimates over the 21st Century is by mental masturbation speculation on Antarctic collapse or Greenland catastrophe. Oh, by the way, lets throw in fears of a collapse of the Gulf Stream. Ha! I guess the sun will stop pumping energy into the equatorial regions to be moved to the poles.
Looking ahead at your response to RACookPE1978 (Interestingly, I became a PE in the same year.), I, in no way, believe nor have ever asserted “… that AGW is one big socialist inspired hoax …” as you assert I believe. You are making unwarranted ad hominem attacks on your better, at least as to relative qualifications in this arena.
Slink back into your mother’s basement and leave me alone, twit.

Woah … cool your boots Dave!. Thought we were having a reasonable debate here. No the hoax theory applies to RACook as I think you are rather more rational on this subject. Let the models play themselves out and let’s see which one of us will be right.

Ivan, we were and are not “… having a reasonable debate here.” You were throwing around senseless and bating gotcha-type questions. I tired of it and abandoned the field.
To have a reasonable debate, all parties need to have decent knowledge of the relevant science, engineering and economic topics.

Ivanski, 0.7C over 150 years is rapid?
In what world?
Even the IPCC has admitted that up to 2C of warming is beneficial, they claim no knowledge beyond that point. However proxy records show that the earth has been as much as 5C warmer than today in the recent past and life flourished during those times.
Your hysteria is noted, and duly ridiculed.

Ivanski, CO2 levels have been between 5000 and 7000 ppm and none of the disasters that haunt your nightmares have occurred. Current CO2 levels going from 280ppm to 500 to 700 ppm is nothing to worry about. Period. 100% certainty.
The plants love it, why should you complain?

According to Mayer Hillman:
Global emissions were static in 2016 but the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was confirmed as beyond 400 parts per million, the highest level for at least three million years (when sea levels were up to 20m higher than now). Concentrations can only drop if we emit no carbon dioxide whatsoever, says Hillman. “Even if the world went zero-carbon today that would not save us because we’ve gone past the point of no return.”

Cheer up Dave. I agree this is rather overpessimistic. Man is not a stupid species. There will be a greater and faster push towards renewables in direct proportion to a reduction in fossil fuel usage. If all goes pear-shaped, the mega rich can jump on one of Elon Musk’s SpaceX rockets and live on Mars.

Ivan the clown: “There will be a greater and faster push towards renewables in direct proportion to a reduction in fossil fuel usage.” What evidence do you have to support your circular reasoning? How do you address stability limits in electrical systems?
Your dysfunctional reasoning is demonstrated by your: “If all goes pear-shaped, the mega rich can jump on one of Elon Musk’s SpaceX rockets and live on Mars.”
You are a clown. Your comments are nonsensical.

Ivan, I have a great sense of humor. But I have a low tolerance for twits.
Jumping into serious discussions with harebrained comments is not funny. You wanna be funny, I’ll be happy to exchange jokes and humorous observations with you. For example, reactions to Kanye West’s statements is hilarious! What do you think?

Don’t know who he is, what he does and couldn’t care less – just another ‘celebrity’ getting too much publicity.
Honestly, Dave, do you ever to any reading up on this subject?
For example:
Today’s highly industrialized economies — the United States and Europe — got a big head start on burning fossil fuels. But China and other developing nations have ramped up output in recent years.
In total, the United States pumped more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other nation between 1850 and 2014, the latest year for which the center’s data is available. The European Union, including Britain, was the second-largest source of fossil-fuel emissions over that period; China came in third.
But China is today’s biggest emitter, by a mile.
The rapidly industrializing country overtook the United States as the world’s biggest source of carbon emissions in the mid-2000s, and has doubled its output since then.
In 2014, China released 10.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry; the United States released more than 5.2 billion metric tons that year.
(Carbon emissions from both countries decreased slightly by 2016, according to the latest data from the related Global Carbon Project. But 2017 estimates suggest that Chinese emissions ticked back up last year.)https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/climate/countries-responsible-global-warming.html?ref=oembed

Who cares, Ivan?
CO2 is not pollution. The earth’s climate is not driven by CO2 alone.
In theoretical terms, man’s CO2 contribution to radiative forcing amounts for about 1% of our energy budget. The best estimate I’ve seen of its forcing is 0.6W/m2, +/-17W/m2. If you are worried about that, you probably need to seek out a safe place.
Humidity and clouds drive a significant portion of our climate. The best scientist really don’t have a handle on what is going on. IPCC climate models admittedly don’t get them right. Their prediction of near-term temperature increases of 0.2C/decade has not been realized. In fact, the IPCC AR5 had to arbitrarily reduce the 2035-2045 temperature estimates. IPCC climate models are bunk.

ivanski, that article indicates who is responsible for CO2 levels, it has nothing to say regarding global warming which started 150 years ago and has not accelerated in recent decades. (In fact it seems to have slowed down markedly)

You are an annoying git, Ivan. The link you posted has no content except another link to a Graun article. Why didn’t you just post THAT link instead?
As for Mayer Hillman’s apocalyptic predictions of doom, it’s clear that he’s a Malthusian Misanthrope who thinks the world can only be saved by billions of people no longer being alive. But here’s the rub about such idiots. They always finesse how to get to this new Utopia, the actual mechanism for reducing the world’s population. Hillman seems to think the only way to do it is via free market style thinking that inevitably leads to a natural collapse of civilization. I’m fine with that, because I think he’s dead wrong. He’s thinking the mechanism will be fossil fuel burning, ergo CO2 emissions, ergo runaway heating, ergo death to civilization and death to billions of people. In other words, he’s just like Paul Erlich. Erlich, by the way, is the most often wrong and most famously wrong about magnitudes of disorder of any futurist who has ever lived, including Malthus himself, who, as a predictor of future doom and gloom, was a tepid piker compared to Erlich.
Your problem is that you are believing the deranged fantasies of cranks and crackpots. And that makes YOU a crank and a crackpot. If you could, please go back and look for successful futurists, who actually succeeded in predicting the future. I think you’d find they look much more like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Ben Franklin, than Malthus or some of the cult leaders that gave us Thugees, Mesmerism, and the like. If you could find one who was correct about today, from 100 to 200 years ago, then you might start to realize what a near-impossible task it is to create a discount rate on today’s behaviors, as judged by an economic reality that you can never possibly hope to understand this far in advance. One day, I hope you will twig to the fact that predicting the weather in the year 2100 is complete folly. So maybe then you can begin to stop worrying and learn to relax a bit.
Whether or not you personally can learn to relax, just know in your heart that for you to be persuasive n this debate, an actual track record of predictive success is necessary for your crazy notions to gain credibility. Without that, you really ain’t got jack squat, except perhaps for growing suspicions of others about your mental instability.

All I can say is thank God for the IPCC to counteract individuals like you who just want to sit on your fat arses and pontificate. Leaders like Macron are showing what can be done on a global scale to counteract AGW and put measures in place to bring its effects under control. Trump may want to remain out of the deal but he doesn’t represent the whole of America (just his sceptic base) where initiatives are already taking place at a state, city and local level to combat climate change. The world is moving on with or without him and climate scientists’ modelling scenarios will continue to be refined to give a more accurate picture of future climate patterns.

Even the IPCC is not predicting the kinds of future that your favorite crank has.
Once again Ivanski proves that he hasn’t actually bothered to study the subject on which he presumes to lecture the rest of us.

So Ivan, are these “initiatives [that] are already taking place at a state, city and local level to combat climate change” responsible for the slight cooling trend we’re now seeing?
And if they are responsible for a significant reduction in atmospheric CO2, are those same people ready to accept responsibility for the commensurate reduction in worldwide foodstuff production, and the corresponding famine, starvation, and deaths from that reduction?
Something to think about…

“Now, the entire middle class of the world are victims of eco-imperialism because it is the use of environmentalism and climate change to impose power and control of most people’s lives by a power elite minority.”
Gotta love that rhetoric! Yup, the eco-imperialists are taking over the world! Watch them swarm, subduing nation after nation, stealing the reins of power as they go – not just over nations, but over individual citizens.
And yet, it’s a funny thing: the fossil fuel fans have repealed regulation, got an anti-environmentalist to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, cut funding for climate change research, and took us out of the Paris Agreement, despite the fact that many or most Americans think AGW is worth trying to mitigate. But still, it’s the let’s-change-the-global-climate-and-see-what-happens crowd that are the victims. Poor helpless conservatives, once again agonizing over the problems of the impoverished developing nations….but dead set against contributing to the Green Fund, which is designed to help the poor adapt to climate change as well as mitigate it, and bring power to those who need it.
Yep, CAGW basturds want to rule the world by mitigating climate change! And every last one of them want the whole world to stop using any fossil fuels whatsoever, and want it immediately! And they don’t care whom it hurts!
Good thing skeptics will protect us from the selfish, totalitarian CAGWers, whose desire for global human and environmental health threatens Americans’ right to inexpensive consumption and waste. They are the enemy of the the poor and the middle class, and they’re all a bunch of commies.
OH!!! ARGGGRG…mmmmph…!!!….. Whew! Sorry, folks, but the old alter ego got the best of me there for a bit! What did she go on about this time?

Kristi, of course not every eco-nut or eco-fascist is insincere. Lot’s of them are very sincere and actually do believe much of the stupid shit they espouse, as for example, when they claim that humans, by controlling the burning of fossil fuels, are capable of steering the climate. An even funnier joke is the ones who believe some expert (like Gavin Schmidt or James Hanson) can calculate the perfect setting for the climate should be in the first place.
But too, there are many in your cult that don’t believe any of that. They understand that every setting that might possibly be set, involves trade-offs and that trade-offs are political minefields, best avoided, or if not avoided, at least not talked about. These much less vocal members of your cult are wise, insofar as they disbelieve in the children’s fairy tales told to the rest of your cult members. In fact, they are the ones who invented those stories. They are the ones who promulgate the brainwashing of school children in environmental messaging long before they’ve even had a basic science class. The funny thing is, once you’ve been indoctrinated, you may continue to believe in that indoctrination even after an advanced degree, after a liberal education, perhaps even after graduating from college as an ecologist. The CAGW cult both dupes and cynics. The worst of the propagandists of your cult, Kristi, are horrible cynics and liars.
Now, many of the cynics really are the purist socialists and one world government Communists and Alinsky-ites. These folks have always known that you may have break eggs to make omlets. They are perfectly happy to lie and dissemble and brainwash even your own team in order to get the global perfection they seek. Because they know that, even if they can’t control the climate, nevertheless, all will be fair and good and right for EVERYONE, simultaneously, once they themselves, the proper experts, have their hands on the levers of political and economic power. It’s a lot like Scientology.

You are definitely a quick study Kristi Silber. You definitely understand the core of this and ‘get’ it. Now all you gotta do is switch sides. Lose your marxist, leftist, liberal indoctrination, because deep, deep down inside, you instinctively know anthropogenic GHG’s have marginal effect on temperatures, let alone feedbacks. And anyway, as you well know, a warmer world is a more secure world, an insurance policy on the cold, dark forces of the infinite universe. Embrace the warmth Kristi.

Chris said (April 27 0942) “India was colonized by Britain in 1858 and gained freedom in 1947.”
Without wishing to argue with Chris and others about the state of the Indian economy, this is wrong. India was, in part, colonized by the British, French, Dutch, Danish and Portuguese well before 1858. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India . The Portuguese were first, in Bombay, Goa, Daman and Diu, and the others followed but not till the 17th century. The above article states: “Since, during this time other companies—established by the Portuguese, Dutch, French, and Danish—were similarly expanding in the region, the English Company’s unremarkable beginnings on coastal India offered no clues to what would become a lengthy presence on the Indian subcontinent.”
It is possible that the British East India Company grew better than the others because it had the fortune (luck?) to pick the best ports. Colonization started with Masulipatam on the river Krishna in SE India in 1611, and then Surat in Gujarat on the Tapti River in 1612. However the Masulipatam settlement was overshadowed by the factory in Madras from 1640, and Surat was similarly overshadowed by Bombay, given by the Portuguese to England as a dowry for the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to Charles II and leased by the Company in 1668. “Two decades later, the Company established a presence on the eastern coast as well; far up that coast, in the Ganges river delta, a factory was set up in Calcutta.” Thus before 1700 the Company had control of what were to become India’s three greatest Ports, while the other foreign settlements barely grew, if at all.
The original purpose of each of these Companies was to make money by trading. Trading cannot be successfully prosecuted in time of war, and as the Mughal Empire declined, various areas took control under the local Nawabs or Rajahs. These often descended into war, hindering trade. As a result the Company had to raise its own army to defend its territory and its goods. This led to the annexation of many of the states, these eventually becoming British India. Others decided it would be better to be allied with the Company, and entered into treaties for their mutual protection, often with a “British Resident” guiding the affairs of the State. These States remained independent, though closely allied to the Company, and then Britain after 1858, until swept up into “India” in 1947.
The Company was interested in trading, hence it had no interest in industrializing (or in deindustrializing – there was almost no industry other than ‘cottage’ type industries in India), and this was left to the native population. Little was done to change native customs, and probably most ‘indians’ lived in penury all their lives, as they had to borrow money at exorbitant rates of interest from money lenders to buy food and seed for crops, and repaying left then destitute each season. No interest in industrializing the country. Probably little was done till Jamshedji Tata (1839 – 1904) founded the Tata Group of companies. One of his goals was a steel works and his son opened the steel works in 1907 – and founded the city of Jamshedpur, aka Tatanagar. Tata Steel was the largest steel works in the British Empire in 1939, and is now the fifth largest steel company in the world.
So Chris was wrong both ways – colonization started well before 1958, only about half of ‘India” was “British India – the rest was independent (except for the tiny enclaves of Goa, Daman and Diu (Portuguese until 1961) and Pondicherry and Karikal (French till 1947).

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy